i don't think there's much debate on the concept that investment can lead to economic growth. trickle down deals strictly with the idea that private individuals are better at determining where that investment money should go than the government. one of the problems of course is that there's a whole bunch of necessary and beneficial services that are difficult to profit off of directly that really there's no motive for the rich to look at funding.
I'm not sure what the hell you're saying. But the term "trickle-down economics" originated as a satirical phrase coined by American humorist Will Rogers in the early 1930s to criticize1920s-era Republican policies. He mocked the idea that aiding the wealthy would benefit the poor, famously stating money was "appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy".
There is nothing new about politicians aiding their cronies under the guise that what their motivation was that their policies would roll down hill to society as a whole.
We don't want money to trickle down - that can be done much more effectively through higher wages.
What the rich are good for, in theory, is to be early promoters and adopters of expensive new technologies that will later enter the general market.
Formula 1 racing would be an example, which has helped build better mainstream commercial engines. Home computers and laptops might be another.
But no one benefits from building more massive mansions or mega yachts, as there will never be a case where most people will be able to afford something like that.
Rich people are only useful as long as they are not too rich. Then they become a major social, economic and political liability.
We don't want money to trickle down - that can be done much more effectively through higher wages.
What the rich are good for, in theory, is to be early promoters and adopters of expensive new technologies that will later enter the general market.
Formula 1 racing would be an example, which has helped build better mainstream commercial engines. Home computers and laptops might be another.
But no one benefits from building more massive mansions or mega yachts, as there will never be a case where most people will be able to afford something like that.
Rich people are only useful as long as they are not too rich. Then they become a major social, economic and political liability.
It's a ridiculous concept. Businesses will always be created to cater to demand. This supply side economy is destroying demand. Businesses are catering to the wealthy because consumer demand has cratered. And consumer demand has cratered because the rich want it all.
Some entity has $16 million to invest in a city with 16 million residents, and they have two options:
1) Mail each resident a check for $1 to use as they see fit, or…
2) Use that $16 million to build a factory that would provide employment for several hundred people.
Which would have a more beneficial effect for the city overall? If it’s #2, is that not an example of “trickle down economics” working at least in this hypothetical case?
If the wealthy invested their surplus wealth into productive industries then that could be seen as a case of trickle down working. But this is a false dichotomy. In practice, the wealthy conceal their wealth from the tax man or park it in non productive assets to preserve their wealth.
And nowhere in it did I use trickle down economics to justify great wealth. Just because we're so often at odds, doesn't mean that everything I say happens to be the thing you want to argue against.
On a related note, I recently had occasion to fly right seat in a private jet transporting a family from Florida to Indiana. On the ramp our jet was one of the smaller ones at that particular gulf coast airport. It all seemed to me as wretched excess, as we flew over communities where I know many families are struggling with basic needs.
But the entire aviation industry keeps untold thousands of folks employed in the manufacture and support of jets large and small. As do the mansion and yacht industries.
On a related note, I recently had occasion to fly right seat in a private jet transporting a family from Florida to Indiana. On the ramp our jet was one of the smaller ones at that particular gulf coast airport. It all seemed to me as wretched excess, as we flew over communities where I know many families are struggling with basic needs.
But the entire aviation industry keeps untold thousands of folks employed in the manufacture and support of jets large and small. As do the mansion and yacht industries.
Yes, they do. The inequalities have always been many. And they have always been there. And most likely, always will be.
From my perspective, the best way to fully understand the problem facing us is to look to see what Industries are thriving and what Industries are struggling. What type of customer base are they pursuing? Is it mass market? Or is it boutique? Do they make money on thousands, even millions of purchases? Or is it a few purchases?
I see general aviation doing quite well. I see these 100, 200, 300 foot and larger yachts clogging the marinas.
And at the same time I'm seeing fast food restaurants going under and businesses being shuttered throughout my town.
The affordable base level car can't even be purchased in the US.
Some entity has $16 million to invest in a city with 16 million residents, and they have two options:
1) Mail each resident a check for $1 to use as they see fit, or…
2) Use that $16 million to build a factory that would provide employment for several hundred people.
Which would have a more beneficial effect for the city overall? If it’s #2, is that not an example of “trickle down economics” working at least in this hypothetical case?
You want companies to really invest in an economically productive and long term profitable way? Jack up their taxes on profits and shareholder disbursements while giving incentives for proper R&D while keeping capital gains tax on shareholder's own share sales relatively low. Along with that, ban leveraged buyouts, executive share option schemes (well, bonuses generally), limit mximum salaries to a relatively low multiple of a company's lowest paid worker, and a few other measures I can't think off the top of my head right now.
All these and similar measures guaranteed US economic and technological hegemony in the second half of the twentieth century, and it was their abandonment that preciptiated the fall
Here’s a thought experiment.
Some entity has $16 million to invest in a city with 16 million residents, and they have two options:
1) Mail each resident a check for $1 to use as they see fit, or…
2) Use that $16 million to build a factory that would provide employment for several hundred people.
3) Use that $16 million to build a factory that would replace several hundred people with robots.
4) Use that $16 million to bribe a politician to promote your environmentally destructive source of profit.
Which would have a more beneficial effect for the city overall? If it’s #2, is that not an example of “trickle down economics” working at least in this hypothetical case?
Trickle-down economics is the secularized version of pie in the sky when you die!
Fortunately, this is an insight that seems to be dawning on most people nowadays.
3) Use that $16 million to build a factory that would replace several hundred people with robots.
4) Use that $16 million to bribe a politician to promote your environmentally destructive source of profit.
'I HIT ROCK BOTTOM DAILY': Trump economy & cuts leave some Americans unable to afford toilet paper (MS NOW on YouTube, Aug 12, 2026 – 7:34 min.)
MS NOW’s Lawrence O’Donnell speaks to New York Times Opinion Columnist Nicholas Kristof about his 1,000-mile trip across multiple U.S. states where he visited with Americans paying the price for Trump’s economic policies and cuts to social programs.
ETA: Quick google suggests that average mortgage payments in W. Virginia are around $1500/month, so seems unlikely that utilities bills exceed your mortgage unless you rent or own outright. Which might be the apples and oranges being compared there.
ETAA: Also quick google shows that you are correct about electricity but adding water, sewage, etc. brings the total up to about 250. So, still, a very low mortgage.
is that an average new mortgage or average mortgage? property values have skyrocketed in the last 5-10 years
anyway here’s a site where you can search by state and county for the median price which seems more fair to me since the average can be quite skewed. many counties in wv have mortgage payments in the $600-800 range at those median property values
How do Americans find relief with inflation rising? 'They don't,' economist says (MS NOW on YouTube, Aug 12, 2026 – min.)
The latest inflation report finds prices are rising higher while wage growth is not keeping up. Director of Economic Policy at Veda Partners Henrietta Treyz and University of Michigan Professor of Economics Justin Wolfer join Katy Tur to provide their expertise.
Credit card balances are ticking higher midway through the year, according to a new report on household debt from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Credit card balances are ticking higher midway through the year, according to a new report on household debt from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
No problem!
CNN has the solution to poverty in the USA:
Joe Rogan shares observations that align with socialism (CNN on YouTube, Sep 7, 2026 – 7:39 min.)
Joe Rogan shared some observations that align with Socialist views on the Tuesday episode of his podcast 'The Joe Rogan Experience.' CNN's Abby Phillip and her panel discuss if Trump and his MAGA allies are embracing Socialistic policies. 0:00 Joe Rogan accidentally makes the case for Socialism 3:20 Socialism vs Populism 6:00 Joe Rogan on what society would look like if there was no stock market
1) No, Joe Rogan doesn't actually 'make the case for socialism,' not even 'accidentally':
0:08–> Rogan: Just imagine how much less crime there would be if no one was ever starving. If no one was ever hungry, if no one was ever desperate. If no one was ever worried about where their next meal was going to come from or where whether or not they're going to have a roof over their head. What if like there's no more poverty? What if the concept of poverty is like completely out the window and there is no poverty in this country? Well, we could have already done that already. Co-host (?): We could have already done that. Yeah. Yeah. Like, we don't need anything. Rogan: But you would have to get all those rich people that are in charge of industry and running corporations and in government to agree to make the world a better place for everybody.
If this is socialism, then Charles Dickens was a radical left socialist and A Christmas Carol is revolutionary screed!
2) Then there's Kmele Foster making the case for old-fashioned trickle-down economics:
2:01–> Foster: Like, you could liquidate all of the wealth held by all of the billionaires and redistribute that money to every American that has less than $100,000 a year. They would get like 20 to $30,000 one time. And then what? What would you actually have done? Achieved absolutely nothing. This is not how wealth is created. You don't make people wealthier simply by redistributing money and taking things from one place to another.
Achieved absolutely nothing? I'm pretty sure that "every American that has less than $100,000 a year," in particular every American who has considerably less than $100,000 a year, tends to disagree.
Need I mention that Foster (Wikipedia) happens to be a businessman and a libertarian?
3) But then there's Caroline Sunshine (Wikipedia – I'm not making it up! That's her actual name.) setting things straight to counter all the utopian BS):
7:01–> Sunshine: It's an interesting point about the stock market. You know, the top 10% um in our country own 80% of the stock market. The bottom half of Americans don't own anything. They have debt, car debt, medical debt, student loan debt. um our main childbearing age population carries way more debt than our senior-aged population. And I think the solution isn't socialism because socialism, to your point, just strips wealth. It doesn't create wealth.[highlight] The solution is get more people participating in the stock market[/hilite],
Of course!!! It was so obvious the whole time, and yet nobody thought of it! Poor people need to buy more stocks and bonds!
They'll get rid of their credit-card debt in no time once they start cashing in!
By the way, I wonder how Sunshine came up with the idea that socialism "doesn't create wealth.* Did she study economics at Trump University or Prager U???
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
